| 16 Nov 2023 |
 problems | to be honest, i do not think it's a good idea to abandon other distros like that. whether or not nix is currently the agreed-upon better approach, creating a monoculture is always bad | 19:24:52 |
 Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
if this is indeed the case (and I suspect it is, given the circumstances, but don't know for sure), it would probably be a good idea for NGI to flatly state "we are unlikely to accept funding applications for package managers that are not built around a Nix-like model, as we believe that a Nix-like model is an important component of our broader goals" I personally think that's unneeded and can even be harmful, that can discourage innovation of things that might not follow Nix-like model but very much could be better. | 19:25:32 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | I mean, that's certainly a valid topic of discussion, but what I'm saying is that if this is already their policy, then it would probably be a good idea to say that out loud | 19:25:48 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I think you just have to offer something that is good | 19:25:50 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | if it's not, well... too bad 🤷♂️ | 19:26:01 |
| problems | it would be a good idea to say it out loud because then we could have the drama in its lesser form now, vs worse drama that alienates a lot more people later | 19:26:18 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | "monoculture" may well be undesirable, but if "monoculture" has been set in stone for one reason or another, then "unstated monoculture" is worse than "documented monoculture" | 19:26:30 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | The arch thing felt like a complete cope to me idk | 19:26:42 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (it's also worth noting that NGI projects only run for a few years, typically, and that each program has its own focus and criteria, and so even if funding is restricted to a particular package manager design within a particular program, that does not necessarily mean that it will forever become a monoculture) | 19:27:59 |
| problems | In reply to@kranzes:matrix.org
I think you just have to offer something that is good the issue here is that people can only recognize as "good" what is comprehensible to them. if nix is easier for them to understand the advantage of, then other options will not receive the same level of consideration. | 19:28:01 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I, Ilan, don't personally think that their Arch technology is a better use of time and money than a Nix thing, that's because I think the Arch way of doing things is just flawed. | 19:28:16 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | So I would do exactly what NGI/NLNet did, which is not spending money on something like Arch and spend it on Nix or Guix. | 19:28:41 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | for me that would depend on the purpose of the fund | 19:28:55 |
| problems | that's one of the issues inside valve for example. minorities have a much harder time with everything because their issues are harder for the majority to understand. | 19:29:05 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Calling it biasness seems like a cope and bluntly, a "skill issue" (sorry, idk of any other non trendy and serious term for this) | 19:29:41 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | there's a difference between a fund for "the future of reliable computing" and a fund for "supporting FOSS-based infrastructure that exists today", and there would probably be different optimal funding recipients for both | 19:29:52 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
there's a difference between a fund for "the future of reliable computing" and a fund for "supporting FOSS-based infrastructure that exists today", and there would probably be different optimal funding recipients for both I think Nix falls into both of these categories personally... | 19:30:25 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I don't think that is so much the case for the latter; most existing infrastructure is not running NixOS and will not run it any time soon | 19:30:46 |
| problems | In reply to@kranzes:matrix.org
Calling it biasness seems like a cope and bluntly, a "skill issue" (sorry, idk of any other non trendy and serious term for this) you are biased in that you understand nix and you understand how it is good. you might not as easily understand the virtues of something equally good or better if it is not like what you already know. | 19:30:50 |
| problems | also, i'll note that none of us afaik have seen the arch proposals and therefore cannot judge them on their merits whatsoever, so any judgement made here is purely bias. | 19:31:55 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | From a nix person perspective the blog read out as "How come my thing that is worse and not that innovative (Ilan's perspective) is not getting as much love and funding as the other person's thing that is actually innovative and not build upon the same ancient traditional Linux concept of package management" | 19:32:20 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @kity:kity.wtf
also, i'll note that none of us afaik have seen the arch proposals and therefore cannot judge them on their merits whatsoever, so any judgement made here is purely bias. Yes | 19:32:32 |
| problems | In reply to@kranzes:matrix.org
From a nix person perspective the blog read out as "How come my thing that is worse and not that innovative (Ilan's perspective) is not getting as much love and funding as the other person's thing that is actually innovative and not build upon the same ancient traditional Linux concept of package management" yes, because you're biased to thinking that anything not-nix is not worth your time.q | 19:32:45 |
| problems | * yes, because you're biased to thinking that anything not-nix is not worth your time. | 19:32:46 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I think the tone is not great (and have also told the author as such) but there are legitimate criticisms in there either way, about the (lack of) communication from NGI | 19:32:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * I think the tone is not great (and have also told the author as such) but there are legitimate criticisms in there either way, about the (lack of) communication and explanation from NGI | 19:33:07 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it's not either/or | 19:33:20 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | But honestly if It is truly innovative and worthy of being funded, I wouldn't be making it part of Arch which is already known (to the funders) as something not that innovative | 19:33:27 |
| problems | i don't care about the tone. the article is well written and brings forward legitimate concerns | 19:33:31 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I heard a bit from this from Ryan at oceansprint, my thoughts haven't changed that much after reading the blog | 19:34:20 |
